<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (1) TMI 279 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183043</link>
    <description>Separate statutory registrations, employees, accounts, partners and financial arrangements may establish that business concerns remain distinct establishments under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Unity of ownership, management, control and functional integrality requires assessment of common employment, supervision, financial interdependence, machinery or staff, and operational connection. Sharing premises or using another concern&#039;s vehicles for payment alone does not establish integration. Employer liability depends on ultimate control over the relevant establishment and cannot be imposed by combining employee strength where the concerns lack common management and control.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 18:15:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 279 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183043</link>
      <description>Separate statutory registrations, employees, accounts, partners and financial arrangements may establish that business concerns remain distinct establishments under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Unity of ownership, management, control and functional integrality requires assessment of common employment, supervision, financial interdependence, machinery or staff, and operational connection. Sharing premises or using another concern&#039;s vehicles for payment alone does not establish integration. Employer liability depends on ultimate control over the relevant establishment and cannot be imposed by combining employee strength where the concerns lack common management and control.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>